• Am J Emerg Med · Oct 2014

    Observational Study

    The inaccuracy of determining overcrowding status by using the National ED Overcrowding Study Tool.

    • Hao Wang, Richard D Robinson, Kellie Bunch, Charles A Huggins, Katherine Watson, Rani D Jayswal, Noah C White, Brett Banks, and Nestor R Zenarosa.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, Integrative Emergency Services Physician Group, John Peter Smith Health Network, 1500 S Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76104. Electronic address: hwang01@jpshealth.org.
    • Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Oct 1;32(10):1230-6.

    BackgroundEmergency department (ED) crowding has become more common, and perceptions of crowding vary among different health care providers. The National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) tool is the most commonly used tool to estimate ED crowding but still uncertain of its reliability in different ED settings.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study are to determine the accuracy of using the NEDOCS tool to evaluate overcrowding in an extremely high-volume ED and assess the reliability and consistency of different providers' perceptions of ED crowding.Material And MethodsThis was a 2-phase study. In phase 1, ED crowding was determined by the NEDOCS tool. The ED length of stay and number of patients who left without being seen were analyzed. In phase 2, a survey of simulated ED census scenarios was completed by different providers. The interrater and intrarater agreements of ED crowding were tested.ResultsIn phase 1, the subject ED was determined to be overcrowded more than 75% of the time in which nearly 50% was rated as severely overcrowded by the NEDOCS tool. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average length of stay and the number of left without being seen patients under different crowding categories. In phase 2, 88 surveys were completed. A moderate level of agreement between health care providers was reached (κ = 0.5402, P < .0001). Test-retest reliability among providers was high (r = 0.8833, P = .0007). The strength of agreement between study groups and the NEDOCS was weak (κ = 0.3695, P < .001).ConclusionUsing the NEDOCS tool to determine ED crowding might be inaccurate in an extremely high-volume ED setting.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.